your work in burma, and you might be happy to know that just in a few minute we'll be receiving writings and papers from a man who loved you very, very much and who didn't get to live to see you, sadly, didn't live to see you become a men of parliament in burma, and that's -- vaclov as havel. i look forward to hearing from you now and learn more about your experiences later. so today i want to present to everyone member of parliament in burma, aung san suu kyi. [applause] ..

i know that you have your passport back for the first time in 24 years. and you're headed to oslo to accept your nobel peace prize and also to the u.k. the whole world will be listening to what you have to say. so what is your message to the world going to be? >> well, first of all i didn't my old passport back. i got a new one. it is about the size of my old one. i'm not sure i like it.

i am looking forward to the trip to europe. it will be first time i've been abroad in the last 24 years. but i hope that new changes will be of stimulating kind and that will help me to see not just the world but my own country again in a new and more distinct light. >> let me ask a few questions about current events in burma. one of the encouraging things that happened last year was the government's promise to release all prisoners of conscience. several hundred have been released but i understand that more remain in prison. sometimes unfairly charged with nonpolitical crimes. how will this situation be resolved and what can the world do to encourage a resolution? >> when the last batch of political prisoners were

released last january the home minister said that those who were released were released according to the list submitted by my party. the national league for democracy. but as it happens there are still 271 prisoners on that list who have not yet been released. we have been in touch with the home ministry about this and we would like to discuss the matter with them. they said officially that those prisoners on our list have been released we would still like to know why there are still 271 who haven't been released. we have this question. there are to be no political prisoners in burma if we're really heading for democratization. >> among the biggest challenges in burma is whether genuine efforts for peace and reconciliation will be made in the ethnic regions in conflict.

cease-fires are only a first step. what should the peace process look like? how can the promise of freedom be realized for all of burma's ethnic groups? >> first of all i would say the government will have to recognize the aspirations of ethnic nationalities and i think there has to be a commitment to a political settlement a cease-fire is not enough. a cease-fire is just a beginning. there is no substitute for political, political settlement. it is not enough to bring economic development to the ethnic nationality regions. there has to be a political settlement. i think all the ethnic nationalities are agreed on this. [inaudible] political settlement that promises made to the ethnic nationalities when burma was independent in 1947. >> here's a question that i

can't resist as a newspaper columnist. reports are swirling that the government will make significant changes in some leadership positions and some of those rumors mention you. would you consider a government position? >> [inaudible]. this is one of the problems living in an opaque society. we hear all kind of rumors. we don't know how many of them are true. we have heard that one of the vice presidents will resign or has resigned and that seven ministers are agreed to be replaced. [inaudible] >> here is a question that comes from facebook which is a partner with the freedom collection. it's from abud. how do you look at the syrian uprising calling for freedom? how can the world help to bring freedom to the syrian people and put it an end to

their ongoing suffering? >> if were an easy answer to this question i think syria would be at peace now. i do believe we should all help peoples struggle for freedom anywhere in the world, whether it is in syria or burma or anywhere else and i personally believe in -- [inaudible] that does not mean that i in any way condemn those who have -- all of violence. i think violence that begets violence. an oppressive regime that practices violence will be met by violence. that is -- [inaudible] and i feel very fortunate that we have been able to maintain our nonviolence stance in spite of many oppressions of the military reg people. -- regime. at this moment i like to say

to the people of syria we are with you in your struggle for freedom. [applause] >> let me pose a few questions of strategy when it comes to promoting democratic change. many successful and ld candidates in the recent election were women. what role did the empowerment of women play in burma's democratic progress and how can women's political participation be enhanced? >> i do think it not just in burma but everywhere in the world i think we can say women are -- [inaudible] the very fact that much more sensible makes all democratic process much better if there are more of us involved in it. i'm a great believer in the power of women.

[inaudible] and their dedication to others. i hope i'm not offending you and other men who are present if i say that i think women can be less selfish than men. and [inaudible] -- bar to progress anywhere in the world by using our own brand of unselfishness we can help to bring down the barriers that are making our world such -- an unhappy place. >> over the years the united states and other democratic countries have imposed sanctions on the burmese government to pressure for change. now that there seems to be some progress at what pace should those sanctions be lifted? how does the u.s. provide rewards for progress without losing he have arerage for further change?

>> i understand from a news broadcast this morning that senator mccain is thinking of the suspension of sanctions rather than lifting of sanctions. it possible first step. what has been done at the e.u., what has been done by the e.u., they would suspend sanctions but not lift them all together. that is a way sending a strong message that we will help the process of democratization. if this is not maintained we will have this think of other ways of making sure that the aspirations of people of burma for democracy is respected. i am am not against the suspension of sanctions as long as the people of the united states feel this is the right thing to do at the moment. i do, i do have a caution though. i sometimes feel that things, people are too optimistic

about the scene in burma. you have to remember the democratization process is not irreversible. i have said openly we can never look upon it as irreversible until such time as the military commits itself to democratization, solidly and officially. [applause] >> some in the united states are critical of the whole idea of sanctions as a tool to promote democracy. they argue that a policy of economic engagement and development assistance might have left the burmese regime less isolated and that democratic progress might have come sooner. what is your view of this criticism of sanctions that sometimes emerges iner in? -- in america? >> i don't quite see it this way. you must remember that one of the first able to buy

this national assembly was elected in 2010, with the removal of sanctions. if sanctions had not been effected politically at least if not economically there would not have tabled this motion so early on. so i believe sanctions have been effective in persuading the government to go forward with change. >> i have a, let me, as a follow-up one question there. have there been times when you wished that the united states and other democratic countries had been more forceful or effective in the policies towards burma? is there anything that we could have done differently that might have brought the burmese government to the negotiating table more quickly? >> i'm actually very satisfied because what the united states has

[inaudible] very good friend and i believe that congress has done everything they possibly could to help the cause of democracy in burma. i think we have to do some of the work ourselves. we should not depend on the international community to get democracy for us. we look to them to help us get democracy for ourselves. so i'm very, very appreciative of all that the united states and i only hope that they will go on doing whatever needs to be done. >> here is one more facebook question. from joel. this is a general question. what is your vision for the country? and i had raises the question as a newly-elected legislator what is your priorities? gives you a chance to make a political speech. >> i am not keen on making

political speeches. i've made enough of them already. the reason why we decided to contest the elections was to make sure that the voice of the people would be heard from within the legislature and that we would be able to bring about changes, the necessary changes in the laws that could protect our freedom and remove the constraints that were preventing us from enjoying our human rights to the full. so basically we think that the legislature could be strengthened to become a genuine democratic institution and that is what we're going to urge. >> and what would be the immediate measures, the legal measures that are necessary to make that happen? are there constitutional changes? what are the measures that are necessary? >> well, one of the most necessary measures are amendments to the constitution but i don't think this is one of the first things that we will be able to do. as i'm sure you know it

would require more than 75% of the national assembly to vote for an amendment to the constitution and since 35 of the national assembly are unelected members of the military it means that we would have to have support of the military to change the constitution, to make amendments to the constitution. so this is not one of the first things we can do but this is the most important thing that we will try to do. >> before we end let me ask you to step back and reflect a little bit. there were times over the last 20 years when many observers believed that your efforts would not succeed. that burma would be ruled by an autocratic regime for the foreseeable future. did you ever see it that way and how were you able to persevere in the darkest times? >> i never saw it that way. i think people who work very

hard never lose hope. often found that those who, -- [inaudible] the harder you will work the more you believe then there's reason for hope. because my party and my colleagues worked so very hard i never lost hope. i was always confident that the we will prevail in the end. >> and so what is your message to the human rights defenders and democracy advocates in countries around the world and the ones that are here in the audience today? what is your advice to them? >> very simple. persevere. you will get there in the end. just go on and don't lose hope because there are many, many people in our part of the world who are with you in mind and in spirit. >> thank you so much, suu, for joining us today and your example of courage. [applause] >> thank you.

>> good morning. i'm amanda schnetzer, the director of the human freedom program at the george w. bush institute. in addition to video interviews the freedom collection includes important documents and artifacts from major freedom movements most of them very personal to an individual's experience of fighting for freedom in his or her country. in march we proudly accepted for safekeeping in the freedom collection the presidential medal of freedom that president bush awarded in absentia in 2007 to cuban physician and dissident, dr. oscar biset while he was serving a harsh prison sentence. he has pledged to not allow the medal to enter cuba until his country is free. today we honor vaclev havel,

a man's story dissident turned statesman will be an inspiration for generations to come. to help us understand the difference that president havel made in the lives of today's freedom advocates i invite to the podium, normando hernandez. former prisoner of conscience and a member of cuba's group of 75. normando? [applause] >> [speaking spanish] >> translator: president and mrs. bush, thank you for your commitment to prisoners of conscience. i was imprisoned by the

cuban government by expressing my freedom for cuba. today i can testify from personal experience to the importance of not being forgotten. dictators seek to silence their critics. they want us to be forgotten. for that reason i want to speak today about president vaclev havel. president havel suffered from daring to speak the truth to his oppressors. he believed that words could change the world. as a journalist and a writer i too believe that words can

change the world. during the black spring of 2003 i was one of 75 people imprisoned by the cuban state. my crime was to write about the true conditions in my country. one of the pieces of evidence used against me was that i had a copy of havel's 1978 book, the power of the powerless. president havel wrote, if a single writer in a country

in a chain, there are links of that chain that bind us all. havel and his colleagues brought down a dictatorship by the power of words and ideas. his commitment to human rights became one of the hallmarks of his presidency. as he showed in the interview he did for the bush institute's freedom collection, he understood the importance of solidarity, the importance of not being forgotten. he held a special place in his heart for my homeland.

in 2003 he wrote to dissident paya, the main reason for my interest in cuba lies in the fact that of all the remaining totalitarian regimes the one in cuba is probably closest to my own experience. as a writer, as a prisoner of conscience, as a cuban and as a free man i honor the leadership and legacy of vaclea havel, may his words continue to inspire us. >> thank you very much. [applause]

>> and now pleased to introduce ambassador martin polash the director of the vase laugh havel -- vaclav havel library to make a special presentation. >> mr. president, mrs. bush, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. it is my distinct pleasure to be here today. i believe it was you, mr. president to suggested to va clav half have, vaclav havel library, mr. president, let me offer on this special occasion several momentos for your freedom collection illustrating our central european experience during

our transition to democracy. first you have the original carbon copies of the true comments circulated in can be czechoslovakia after independent initiative demanding that the communist government of czechoslovakia respect in accordance with the international obligations fundamental human rights. one is recognition of the 77 which official communist propaganda condemned as subversive pamphlet by the agents of imperialism without allowing the enslaved czech population. the second is a text writ on by vaclav havel written in may 1977 he wanted to correct the distorted and slander russ version under circumstances which he was released from custody where was held as one of the first

77 persons. both documents clearly demonstrate the importance of the free flow of information and also the reason totalitarian governments try to suppress it. on one hand the obsolete technique of the 1970s make us a distance between the past and our current situation. at the same time however there is one thing with which remains unchanged. it is the comradery of the free and open-minded and determined people created and further expanded thanks to unconstrained communications. it is here that the journey from slavery to freedom always begins. the next item is the edition of vaclav's havel letters from 1983. from the time he himself was still in jail, serving a four-year sentence for

subversion of the republic. this text today is seen as the most important accumulation of havel's philosophy. it is in my view clear proof that vaclav is not an academic but a life stance, requiring not only capacity to think with the help of highly abstract concepts but most of all personal courage and power of the human spirit. third, we are pleased to offer the orryal letter by vaclav havel written in december of 2004, free cuban dissidents, for the nobel peace prize. what we have here is not just an act of solidarity by a former central european dissident with his cuban friends believing as he did in the power of the powerless it is also vaclav havel's appeal to the

international community. peace can be reached by appeasing dictators by policies which should remain realistic but at the same time standing firm behind human rights defenders. to help them to emerge out from their eyeslation and to legitimize their struggles by giving them clear and loud international recognition. and last i present today the collection of the texts and speeches of vaclav havel concerning nato which he himself put together in preparation for its prague summit in the fall of 2002. it was his party, if i may say so with the world of great politics. it is autographed by him, his typical signature in green color, accompanied by a small red heart on the first page of this volume is sending his clear message. the west, the civilizations still have a key role to

play in the world today in the post-european age in the beginning of the 21st century. we who are belong here whether big or small should stand united in our turbulent times and under no circumstances forget about or resign to our fundamental principles and values. it is indeed a great honor for me to present here these gifts on behalf of vaclav havel library. all the documents i brought here with me today are testimony to his life, devoted to the noble cause of human freedom. please accept them for use in your collection. my presence here today at this celebration is not only a sign of the excellent state of czech-u.s. relationship but all the message i will bring home from here we are now a friend and ally of the united states and standing beside and ready to

cooperate with us in our task to preserve vaclav havel's legacy for future generations. thank you. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thanks for coming. [laughter]

see you later. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> this thursday morning the u.s. senate about to gavel in to begin the day. lawmakers will start with a bill reauthorizing food and drug administration user fees and at 10:30 turn to a pair of nominees for the federal reserve. votes on the nominations are scheduled for noon eastern. live to the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the sena te iprayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal savior, like a shepherd lead us. much we need your tender care.

lead our senators today away from cautious complacency and from impulses which can bring regrets. lead them toward the freedom that trusts your providence and believes that in everything you work for the good of those who love you. lord, give us all by your grace pure hearts that love only the highest and clean minds that seek only the truth. let nothing deflect us from your path, so we will always follow you and never lose our way.

we pray in your sovereign name amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., may 17, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 400. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 400, s. 3187, a bill to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act to revise and extend the user fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices, to establish user fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars and for other purposes. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. we're now on the motion to proceed to f.d.a. user fees legislation i. now extent that following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the time until 10:30 be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and

the majority controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, therefore, at 10:30 today the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the stein and powell nominations. both are nominees to the board of governors for the federal reserve system. at noon there will be two votes on confirmation of their nominees. at this stage there likely will be no more votes after that, but we'll make sure everyone is advised as to what is going to happen. i ask unanimous consent that mike lebonte be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, when someone that we love gets sick, the only they think on your mind is how to help them get well, how to get them the care they need. but every miracle drug or innovative new device comes to

market, there is a rigorous approval process to make sure that device or that medicine is going to be safe. to get lifesaving drugs and device to the patients who need them as quickly and efficiently as possible, congress must give the food and drug administration the tools it needs to review and approve these products. today the senate will begin consideration of legislation which gives f.d.a. the resources to ensure medical devices, drugs and treatments are safe and effective. i applaud the work of my colleague, senator harkin and senator enzi to bring this legislation to the floor. these two fine senators have different political philosophies on things generally but they work well in this committee, and i'm very proud of each of them. i consider them both friends and bringing this bill to the floor in the manner they did is indicative of the work that needs to be tkorpbd -- done around here more often. i hope to see the strong bipartisan effort that these two senators began continues as the

senate begins to consider this consideration. the tpao*d tpao d safety and in -- the food and drug administration saefgt -- safety act has fees to ensure products are used quickly and thoroughly before they are improved. this legislation does more than maintain the status quo. it enacts crucial reforms that will prevent drug shortages and bring the lifesaving medicines to market more quickly. it will save high-tech jobs in the medical field, make new treatments available to patients quickly and preserve america's role as a global leader in the biomedical innovation. the legislation will expedite the processes of approving new drugs and the medical device including many designed for children while ensuring these products are safe for consumers. it will help spur innovations that bring the next groundbreaking cancer or parkinson's drug to market. the bill will hold foreign manufacturers who sell drugs in

the united states to the same high standards met by american companies. this is important, mr. president, because of all the misleading attempts by these manufacturers to sell stuff on the internet. it will help prevent drug shortages by opening up the lines of communication between manufacturers and the f.d.a. the senator from minnesota, senator khrob kharbgs and the junior senator from pennsylvania, senator casey, have been leaders on this drug shortage issue and i applaud them. they are doing this to safeguard americans' health. every day hospitals across the country experience shortage of lifesaving f.d.a.-approved drugs and treatments. mr. president, as most senators know, my wife has been ill with cancer, and she had 20 weeks of chemotherapy. every week we were worried that that drug wouldn't be there on that monday morning at noon when she got those treatments. fortunately for us they were, but that isn't the way it is with everyone around the country. people who need these lifesaving

medications have found those medicines not available, and we have to do everything we can to stop that. these shortages threaten public health and prevent patients from getting the care they need. shortage the one drug used to treat a rare form of childhood lieu leukemia, a drug that is an effective cure in 90% of those cases have put young lives at risks by not having those drugs. when i say 90% cure rate, it's amazing. one of my high school buddies had a son that was playing little league baseball. when he went around the bases, he just couldn't do it. this is a macho family, all these tough boys in the family, and they were really concerned that he was not being as aggressive as he should be. he had leukemia, and this boy died. there was nothing they could do for him. he died. now, mr. president, 90% of these

cases are cured. i've spoken on the floor before, others have, there's one form of leukemia that has been almost stopped in its tracks by the scientist discovering a bush called periwinkle. they use the products from that weed to cure cancer. no mother or father should have to watch a child suffer as he waits for lifesaving medicine. as a number of drug shortages increases each year, more parents wait and worry. more husbands and wives and daughters and sons wait and worry. in 2005, the f.d.a. reported shortages of 55 medications. last year the number jumped to 231, including the leukemia drug i just mentioned and some

chemotherapy medicines. these shortages are caused by a variety of factors, the lack of raw materials or, mr. president, another thing that we've learned, these manufacturers -- the manufacturers of these products, they want to be able to sell everything. they don't want to waste valuable money on storing medicines. one of the big businesses used to be in america is warehouses storing things. but this business in reno, nevada, we were a big warehouse storage area because we have no tax on storage. any more there's not as much being stored because manufacturers determine that's a waste of money. and that's one of the things that's happened with these pharmaceuticals. some, though, mr. president are caused by lack of financial incentive or profit motive,

there's nothing wrong with that but companies don't manufacturer them because they don't make them enough money. public awareness has prompted makers to notify the tp*d of pending -- notify the tp*d of pending shortages. congress can and must do more for communication to drugmakers, the f.d.a. hospitals that provide this crucial care. passing this legislation without delay will be a leap for the net process. that's why last night i said, and i say today, i hope we don't have to file cloture on a motion to proceed to this lifesaving legislation. let's get on this legislation. let's not waste -- if we have to vote on cloture on this thing monday, then we can't get on this thing until wednesday and start legislating. how foolish. we'll have amendments -- and i've had a number of republican senators come to me and say we want to be able to offer amendments, relative amendments. good, let's do it. if someone has a problem with

this bill, don't stop us from going to it. offer an amendment. if it's a worthy cause, we'll vote with him or her and get rid of what's in that legislation. but don't hold up the legislation. so i would hope that my -- if my republican colleagues have one of the senators holding this up, they would talk to them and say don't do that. it's making us look bad. and it does, mr. president. i hope we can get on this legislation and work to make the health care delivery system in america more effective and efficient. would the chair announce the business for the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 10:30 will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half.

mr. moran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas is recognized. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you. our nation's founding fathers amended the nature of the constitution more than two centuries ago to guarantee a bill of rights for its citizens. since then our democracy has stood strong and americans have enjoyed liberties and freedoms unparalleled in the world, including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment to the united states constitution. today our freedoms and our country's sovereignty is in danger of being undermined by the united nations. to ensure our liberties remain for generations today and for the future, i'm offering legislation to protect the rights of american gun owners from the effects of any u.n. arms treaty. in october of 2009 at the u.n.

again assembly, the obama administration voted for the united states to participate in negotiating an arms trade treaty, a reversal of the previous administration's position. this treaty is supposedly intended to establish -- quote -- "common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms" including tanks, helicopters and missiles. however, by threatening to include civilian firms within its scope, the arms trade treaty would restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in our country. whether that's true or not depends upon what the treaty actually says. less than two months from now, the u.n. conference on arms trade treaty will take place in new york, and that presumably will determine the language that's ultimately included, as the treaty will be finalized for its adoption. given where the process stands today, i'm concerned that this treaty will infringe upon the

second amendment rights of american gun owners. i'm also concerned it will be used by other countries who do not share our freedoms to wrongly place the burden of controlling international crime and terrorism on law-abiding american citizens. currently, proposals being considered by the preparatory committee at the u.n. would adversely affect u.s. citizens. i have several concerns with these proposals. first, there's been regular calls for bans or restrictions on civilian ownership of guns americans use to hunt, target shoot, and defend themselves. secondly, by requiring firearms to be accounted for through their life span, the arms trade treaty could lead to a nationwide gun registration. this, despite evidence that the costly bureaucratic system has been a complete failure in stopping any crime or stopping criminals from getting access to guns anywhere it has been tried. third, other proposals could

require the marking or tracking of ammunition. to make certain that our country's sovereignty and the rights of all americans are protected, as the administration negotiates the treaty i have sponsored, introduced, senate bill 2205, the second amendment sovereignty act. this legislation is simple and straightforward. first it says that the administration cannot "use the voice, vote, and influence of the united states" to negotiate a treaty that in any way restricts the second amendment rights of american citizens. this is a commonsense requirement that even the administration maintains. in an august letter i received from the u.s. state department, the state department wrote, "the administration will not agree to a treaty that will infringe upon the constitutional rights of american citizens. we will not agree to treaty provisions that would alter or diminish existing rights of american citizens to manufacture, assemble, possession, or transcertificate

firearms, an munition and related items." this bill will back up the administration's position and hold them to that pledge. second, senate bill s. 2205 specifically probabilities the administration from seeking to negotiate a treaty that regulates the domestic manufacture, purchase, or transfer of firearm ammunition. u.n. members, number member states regularly argue that no treaty regulating the transfer of arms fjly can be effective without controlling the transfers inside a country's own border. this, in my view, is totally unacceptable. again, the administration indicates they agree saying that "it will oppose anyests to address internal transfers." congress should hold them to that pledge. at stake is our country's autonomy and the right rights of american citizens. more specifically, the

legislation i've introduced seeks to ensure that u.s. citizens will not be restricted to restrictions on the use or possession of civilian firearms or ammunition. it prohibits the administration from negotiating a treaty that would result in com in domestic regulation of hunting rifles that are often mischaracteristickized as military weapons. civilian firearms must be excluded from any arms trade treaty. preparatory committee meetings have made it clear that many u.n. member states aim to craft an extremely broad treaty that includes civilian firearms within its scope. for example, mexico and several countries in central and south america have called for the treaty to cover "all types of conventional weapons regardless of their purpose, including small arms and light weapons, ammunitions, components, technology, and related materials." if those provisions were included in a treaty, that treaty would be incredibly

difficult to enforce and would pose dangers to all u.s. businesses and individuals involved in any aspect of the firearms industry from manufacturers to dealers to consumers. mr. president, i urge my colleagues here in the senate to adopt this commonsense legislation. on july 22 of last year, 57 u.s. senators joined me in -- and, therefore, a bipartisan number -- joined me in reminding the obama administration that our firearms' freedoms are not negotiatable. we notified president obama and secretary of state clinton of our intent to oppose a treaty that in any way restricts americans' second amendment rights. our opposition is trong enough to block any treaty from passage as treaties submitted to the united states senate require two-thirds approval to be ratified. as the treaty process continues, the second amendment sovereignty act seeks to reinforce the administration's stated position that our country's sovereignty and firearms freedom must not be

infringed upon by an international organization made up by many countries, most who have little respect for gun rights. america leads the world in export standards to ensure that arms are for legitimate purposes and this legislation will make sure that law-abiding americans are not wrongfully punished i. in the days ahead, i will to inwork to ensure that an arms trade treaty, if negotiations result in one, if that treaty undermines the constitutional rights of american gun owners, it will be dead upon arrival in the united states senate. mr. president, i yield the floor and i notice a lack of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor -- the presiding officer: the sna is currently in a quorum call. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today, as i have week after week since the president's health care law has been signed, to talk as a doctor, someone who's taken care of patients all around wyoming, someone who's run the wyoming health fairs, giving low-cost medical screenings to thousands and thousands of citizens around our

state, and someone who knows we needed health care reform in a way that was giving patients the care that they need from the doctor that they want at a cost they can afford. and there were so many promises made with this health care law that i come week after week because there are so many broken promises. and today i wanted to remind -- remind the body that former speaker of the house nancy pelllycy once predicted that the -- nancy pelosi once predicted that the health care reform "will create 4 million jobs." 400,000 jobs, she said, almost immediately. well, it's now two years later, mr. president, and we know that actually the exact opposite is happening. we continue with high unemployment, we continue with people out of work, unemployed, underemployed, and the promise both from the president of new jobs and of nancy pelosi of 4 million jobs is another broken promise. instead of creating jobs, this

new law is destroying jobs all across the country. they say, how is it that they can actually be destroying jobs in well, that's exactly what we're seeing as a result of the health care law. recently columnist george will wrote about how the president's law will impact cook medical. it's the world's largest family-owned medical devices company. he explained in his company that the democratic congress "included in the legislation" -- then all the people on that side of the aisle voted for this -- "included in the legislation a 2.3% tax on gross revenue." not profits. we're talking gross revenue. "which generally amounts to about a 15% tax on most manufacturing profits. from u.s. sales and medical devices beginning in 2013." so it's something that happening very, very soon. this will be piled, as he says," on top of the 35% corporate tax

plus state and local taxes." mr. will went on to say, "this 2.3% tax will be a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs more are than 400,000 people." "and $20 billion is almost double the industry's annual investment in research and development." well, we want them to do research. we want development. we want new and innovative treatments that will actually help people. instead, this administration, the democrats in congress and the house and the senate and the president of the united states, put a 2.3% tax $20 billion blow to those who do the research and the development. this tax is going to lead to fewer jobs, but also fewer pain-reducing and life-extending devices, extents stents, and otr things.

cook medical isn't the only company bracing from the president's legislation. let's take a look at some of those. boston scientific -- it's planning for more than $100 million charge against earnings in 2013, and a recently -- and they recently built a $35 million research and development facility, but where did they -- this is called boston scientific. boston. where did they build their research center? ireland. and they're building $150 million factory it's called boston scientific -- in china. that's a result of what we see with this health care lands the impact of what this administration is doing to jobs in america. striker corporation based in michigan blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs. zimmer based in indiana is laying off 450 and taking a $50 million charge against earnings related to this tax. these are companies that, as an orthopedic surgeon, have made

new advances in technology, in artificial joints over the years that i practiced in wyoming. companies that have long-standing reputations and yet laying off people because of the new health care law. american workers. metronic expects an annual against earnings of $175 million. other companies, kavidian based in ireland cited a tax and laying off in decisions to relocate to london, costa rica and mexican. once again the column by mr. will makes it clear that the president's health care law is destroying jobs and is having a devastating impact on our economy. in march, senator coburn and i released our third health care law oversight report. we entitled the report "warning: side effects. a check up on the federal health law." one chapter is dedicated to the

health care law's job killing medical device tax. it's a tax that multiple studies predict will negatively impact job creation and also incredibly important for people around this country, it will stifle medical innovation. as an orthopedic surgeon, i can tell you i have seen firsthand how cutting-edge medical technology saves lives and also supports jobs across the country. scientists that developed medical devices like pacemakers and defibrillators and artificial joints that have improved the quality of life for so many americans, but now today because of this health care law, the future of the medical device industry in america is under attack. in september of 2011, the manhattan institute issued a report showing the devastating impact of the president's device tax on industry. the manhattan institute's report shows that the medical device tax will eliminate at least

43,000 american jobs. this number represents more than one out of every ten jobs in the device manufacturing sector. it is not a record that the democrats should be proud of, but it is clearly a record caused by the other side of the aisle, the democrats, and specifically the president who signed this bill into law. not only will this tax kill 43,000 jobs, workers are going to lose about $3.5 billion in wages. this is money that is, these workers could have spent in their local communities helping the economy of those communities and, therefore, the nation's economy. so what does all of this mean to u.s. device manufacturers? well, these companies are more likely to close their plants in the united states. they will close plants here and do what others have done, replacing them with plants overseas. foreign manufacturers will improve their competitiveness compared to american firms.

this will severely threaten u.s. leadership in the device industry and in the world. do we really, really want to see plants closing and high-tech medical device facilities in places like massachusetts, minnesota, new mexico, new york and wisconsin? finally, the president's medical device tax is going to increase costs to american consumers. these are the american consumers who said what they wanted with the health care law is, the care they need, the doctor they want at a price they can afford. yet this health care law is going to increase costs to american consumers. the congressional budget office, they have warned that the health care law's tax imposed on medical device manufacturers and drug manufacturers and health insurance providers would be passed through to the consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums. wasn't it the president, though, who promised that under his health care law, insurance premiums would lower by $2,500 a

year? is that a promise that the president has forgotten or democrats in congress have forgotten? the american people haven't forgotten, which is why the health care law is even more unpopular today than the day that it was signed into law. the administration's own chief actuary, medical actuary, richard foster, he came to the same conclusion. he said that he estimated that these taxes would be passed through to health care consumers in the form of higher drug prices, higher device prices and higher insurance premiums. if the administration wants to get serious -- and i really wonder if this administration wants to get serious -- if the administration wants to get serious about reducing regulatory burdens and about creating good jobs, then the president should start today by repealing his onerous medical device tax. not only will this device tax suppress job creation and limit economic growth, it will also

slow and perhaps even stop research and development into new lifesaving medical devices. we must take action to repeal this anticompetitive job-destroying device tax before it begins to take effect in 2013. if the white house wants to work with republicans on progrowth policies, policies that support innovation, policies that get the nation's economy moving again, then president obama would support repealing this device tax. senator orrin hatch hassent dued legislation -- has introduced legislation, s. 17, that would do just that. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of that bill, mr. president, and i believe the senate should take up the hatch bill and pass it. mr. president, as we are now two years after the passing and signing into law the president's health care law, i will continue to come to the senate floor,

because this is a health care law that is bad for patients. it's bad for providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients. and it's terrible to the american taxpayers. we need to repeal and replace this broken health care law. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: yesterday in

the senate we got a vivid look at why the challenges we face in this country are so difficult to address. with the looming fiscal crisis some have called the most predictable in history, with the national debt at a level none of us ever even imagined, with millions unemployed and millions more underemployed, with the biggest tax hike in history looming at the end of the year, and with entitlement programs like medicare and social security drawing ever closer to insolvency, here's what senate democrats did yesterday: they ducked. they were presented with five different options for dealing with these problems, and they voted against every single one of them. now, no one was particularly surprised to see democrats reject the republican proposals.

we hoped that some of them would support them. but we weren't altogether surprised that they didn't. but every american should be surprised that democrats didn't offer a single plan of their own. not one. not a single plan of their own. and that they didn't even support the plan offered by the president of their own party. but sadly, that's what passes for leadership in the democrat-led senate these days. oppose everybody else, even including a president of your own party, and hope nobody notices you're not doing anything yourself. most people would say it's the responsibility of the party in power to propose solutions, and they'd be right. the problems we face are simply too serious and too urgent to avoid any longer. and yet, democrats continue to

duck any responsibility for addressing them. we certainly saw that yesterday. i would imagine there are some democrats this morning who are having second thoughts about their party's peformance yesterday. and if i'm right about that, i would invite them to stand up and to work with us. put aside what's politically safe and do what's right. the problems we face are too great to put off for another day. it's time for all of us to come together, come together and to act. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senate currently in a quorum call. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the senate floor to debate and oppose the two federal reserve nominees that president obama has sent to the senate. but first let me say i think it's very important, very good,

very healthy that we're having this debate and we're having these votes. that's how the senate should operate, particularly on very, very important presidential nominations. and, mr. president, these certainly fit into this category. the federal reserve is an extremely important body for all sorts of reasons, but i would mention three in particular. first of all, it sets monetary policy, and that is a very important economic tool and set of economic policies. and right now this federal reserve, under chairman bernanke, has an unprecedented policy of zero interest rates, easy money for an extended period of time, which is historically unprecedented. secondly, the federal reserve is the primary regulator of our nation's biggest banks -- bank of america, citigroup, wells

fargo, and another that's been in the news quite a bit in the last few weeks, j.p. morgan chase. now, obviously all of these entities were involved in the recent economic crisis, so again the federal reserve is extremely important, as those megabanks' primary regulator. we should be talking about that. finally, mr. president, the federal reserve has other important authority and responsibilities, including in situations where they have taken action to bail out these megabanks. they have that authority. they also have authority to issue regulations under dodd-frank. all of these reasons are reasons why these two nominations are extremely important. and, mr. president, that's why i've demanded this debate and these votes. fundamentally, i demanded this debate, these votes for two

reasons. first of all, i oppose these nominations. i am voting "no." there was a u.c. promulgated, and that u.c. had it been accepted, would have meant a "yes" vote for me. i couldn't vote that way for reasons i will explain. secondly, more broadly, i think it's important we have this debate and we have these votes. and this used to be the norm in the u.s. senate. you know, between 1994 and 2000, all but two nominations to the federal reserve board were voted on by the u.s. senate. yet, since 2001, that's flipped for some reason. since 2001 only two nominees have received votes. ten members, ten nominees were confirmed to the board of governors without a recorded vote. i think that's unfortunate. i think this is the proper way

for the senate to do its business, particularly when such important issues are at stake. let's talk about those issues. first of all, monetary policy. the federal reserve's primary responsibility, one of its two huge mandates is to set healthy proper monetary policy for the united states. personally, i think that should be its only mandate, their efforts here in the congress to move the law to that position. but it's certainly a major role of the federal reserve and extremely important. what's more, this federal reserve, under chairman bernanke and this economy, has set monetary policy in an unprecedented way, and that's not editorializing. that's just a factual assessment, a factual description, because this federal reserve has set essentially a zero interest rate

policy, an extremely easy-money policy for an extended period of time, a very long period of time, without any end in sight. and that has never before happened. there are many experts, economists, commentators who think this is very dangerous policy, and i share their concerns. i don't pretend to be an expert as they are. i don't pretend, quite frankly, to have the economic training and background of chairman bernanke and others. but those who do, many of those who do have grave concerns with this unprecedented easy-money policy. let me just mention a few. dr. alan metler, sees signs of this building a future inflation and weakening dollar and believes the fed did great harm in these categories with its quantative easing, so-called

qe-2. dr. metzler read fed minutes for years and written definitive history of the fed and said the central problem is there is a lack of discussion of alternatives and consequences of their policies. the federal reserve bank of kansas city tom miss hoenig said the effort to push down rates may produce a bad outcome. he said -- quote -- "i have real concerns about trying to fine-tune and micromanage the economy when monetary policy is a blunt tool." richard fisher of dallas said he believes the fed's monetary policy has yet to show evidence of working. he's the federal reserve bank of dallas president. he says in particular, the fed's plan to buy $400 billion of long-term bonds while selling the same amount of short-term

debt is benefitting financiers and not aiding job creation. philadelphia fed president charles plosser in a speech on economic outlook to the business leaders forum at villanova school of business expressed extreme skepticism with that so-called operation twist, trading long-term debt for short-term debt. and he really didn't think it would encourage business investment or consumer spending. quote -- "i dissented from these decisions because i believe they will do little to kpwraouft near-term -- to improve near-term prospects for employment and they do pose risks." they are very legitimate strong concerns which i share on the current monetary policy of this federal reserve. and it is very clear from the statements of these two nominees that these two nominees will support that policy, will

support that direction for the forseeable future, will not provide dissent, will not provide alternative viewpoints. in addition, let me mention three other things about the fed. as i mentioned, the fed in general is the primary regulator of the megabanks, and still i believe we do not have adequate focus and adequate regulation in that category. and i would only point to the recent disastrous announcement of j.p. morgan chase. also, the fed, with five affirmative votes, passes regulations under dodd-frank under its authority. that process is ongoing right now. why these two nominations' significant in impacting the development of those dodd-frank regulations one way or the other? it's pretty simple. those dodd-frank regulations

coming out of the fed need five affirmative votes. right now there are five members of the board of governors. so they need to reach complete unanimity with regard to those regulations. when the negative impact, possible impact of those regulations is such a threat, i think that required unanimity is actually very healthy and a real protection. these two new members of the fed changed the map, changed the requirement from needing five out of five to needing five out of seven. i think that will significantly push these regulations to the left, if you will, and require and, therefore, produce less consensus that those with economic viewpoints such as mine would like to see continue. and in the same vein, the fed is certainly significant not only regulating the megabanks, but in instances like two years ago,

bailing out the megabanks. and they have that authority and they have that role. just as with dodd-frank regulations, that requires five affirmative votes of the fed board. again, right now before these two confirmations, that would mean five out of five. it would require unanimity. i think that's healthy actually with regard to such an extreme measure as huge taxpayer-funded bailouts as we've seen in the last three years. if these two new members of the board nominees are confirmed, that math again would change in the same way. the requirement would move from five out of five to five out of seven. it would shift the outcome to the left, if you will. it would make it much more likely that the fed would act sooner to bail out megabanks with taxpayer funds. i have all of these concerns about these nominations, these

two nominees are fine, decent men. they're smart. they're qualified in the professional sense. however, they clearly also support the current direction of chairman bernanke and the fed. and for that reason, i cannot support the nominations, and i have real concerns. but in closing, mr. president, let me say that at least i think it's positive that we're having this debate and that we're voting. as i cited, that used to be the norm in the united states senate, including with regard to federal reserve board of governors nominations. these are very important nominations because of monetary policy, because of their regulatory authority, because of bailouts and dodd-frank and all the rest. it's more important now more than ever because of the unprecedented nature of chairman bernanke and the fed's monetary

policy and because of the history of the last three years. we need this debate. we need these votes. i don't think spending about two hours on it on the floor of the u.s. senate is too much to ask. so i'm glad i asked for that. i'm glad i demanded that. and with that opportunity, i'll be voting "no." thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time, and i also suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: will the senator withhold his request? mr. vitter: i will. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination: federal reserve system, jerome c. stein of massachusetts to be a member of the board of governors. jeremy h. powell of maryland to be a member of the board of governors. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 90 minutes of debate in the usual form.

the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: i understand we may be in queerk? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. corker: i ask unanimous consent that that be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. i want to spheerk a moment today about the vote we're going to have at noon on the federal reserve board members that are being nominated. i have met both of these individuals, and i plan to vote for them today at noon. but i want to tell you why i'm going to do that. i am very concerned about the overly acom accommodateive effot the federal reserve. i think these low interest rates over a long period of time will create inflation in our country.

i believe the fed has been proactive in recent times in ways that make me nervous. as soon as qe-2 was announced, i immediately called the chairman of the federal reserve and i would had a meeting in our office to talk about the concerns that he had and the concerns that we in our office have. i'd love to see the federal reserve have a single mandate like the european central bank has and like the bank of england has, where their sole purpose is really price stability. i'd also love to see congress act responsibly and deal with the many fiscal and other kinds of issues that are holding down our economy, and i feel sometimes that the federal reserve feels like it's the only entity that is actually acting to try to stimulate our economy, and i understand the position that they're in, having a dual

mandate, which i think is inappropriate and hopefully over time will change. these two nominees are candidly do not represent the kind of more hawkish position that i would like to see the federal reserve take, where they're concerned about price stability over the long haul. at the same time, these gentlemen both are qualified. i don't think there's any question that someone would say that these two individuals are qualified. we do have fed presidents from around the country that typically, as far as monetary policy on the federal reserve board, do act in more hawkish ways and probably more represent the way that i would view thin things, as they ought to be, and some of the accommodations that the federal reserve has continued to make. i hope we do not get in a situation where we end up having -- you could actually call it

qe-4. some people mid call it qe-3. i hope that does not happen and we will continue to press the federal reserve towards that end in any way that we can. i also know that there's going to be an election in november, and that whoever the next president is, obviously, as you would expect, i hope there is a change in occupancy at the white house this november, someone that will actually try to solve the problems that our nation has. but whoever the next president is, they will have the opportunity to appoint the next chairman of the federal reserve very soon and also the next vice-chairman of the federa fedl reserve. so i guess what i would say in closing is i am going to support these nominees because they're qualified. i do hope that they will press the chairman of the federal

reserve to be more concerned about price stability, especially into the future. but i do not want to vote no today because i think it sets a precedent of saying that look, these guys are qualified, i don't think there's any question about that and i want the next president which i hope, again, is someone different than we have today, i want them to have the opportunity themselves and i want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if they, in fact, -- if -- if a change is to occur, and if a president has the opportunity to appoint a new federal reserve chairman and a new vice chairman, and he deems them qualified and this body deems them qualified, i hope we're going to have the opportunity to fill those positions. so, again, i plan to vote for these nominees in an effort to continue to cause this place to

focus in the way that i think it should. they're not ideal from my perspective, but they are qualified. we did have someone, i might remind friends on my side of the aisle, we did have someone that was nominated several months ago which was not in the mainstream. this person was not in the mainstream of thinking, and this person did not become a member of the federal reserve board. so we've ended up having two nominees that are more middle of the road, they're not as hawkish as i would like to see them be, they're not as focused in my opinion, or they possibly will not be as focused on price stability as i would like to see them be, but they are qualified, they are not out of the mainstream, and i do plan to support them. mr. president, i see the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. alex around: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from ten sten recognized. -- tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, at noon, the senate will be voting on two of president obama's nominees to the federal reserve board. these are important positions. they have long terms and they come at a time when our economy is in trouble and doing its best to recover. in these votes, the senate will be acting in the way that it should and let me say why i'm saying that. tuesday of this week, someone most of us know, marty peoni, who was the democratic secretary of the senate for 13 years until 2008, wrote an article in "the hill," a capitol hill newspaper.

it's entitled in the headline, "senate rule changes come with risk" but all i want to refer to today is a description of the senate that's on our senate web site. and marty says our own web site describes, speaking of the senate, -- quote -- "the legislative process on the senate floor is a balance between the rights guaranteed to senators under the standing rules and the need for senators to forgo some of those rights in order to expedite business"-- unquote. i ask unanimous consent to place this in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: what's reflected on the senate web site is -- is the action that the senate is about to take at noon today. there's been at least one vacancy and sometimes two since 2006, that's one whole senate term.

the federal reserve board has seven governors authorized by -- nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. and so during that whole six years it's had one or two of those seven positions vacant and it's during the time since twiet 2008, the greatest economic crisis we've had since the great depression. the president tried once to nominate someone to that position who wasn't accepted by the senate. so in january, the president took the unusual step of nominating a well-qualified republican, jay powell, as well as a well-qualified democrat. now, there's a good deal of unease in the republican caucus, as i'm sure was reflected in some of the comments on the floor, about the response that the federal reserve board has taken to the economic crisis since 2008. and senators on this side of the aisle who have those concerns

had a perfect right -- have a perfect right to filibuster, to object, and perhaps to kill these two nominations, but the republican senators have realized if we were to do that to president obama's nominees today, then if there were a president romney after the first of the year, the democrats very likely would say we'll do that to president romney's nominees and we'd still with vacancies on the federal reserve board at a time of economic crisis. so just as the president took a step toward making government work by nominating a well-qualified republican to one of these two fed governor positions, i want to acknowledge the fact that republican senators who feel strongly about this issue have always taken a step period and forgone in the words of our web site, some of their rights so we could move to a vote up or down, at 60 votes on each of

the two nominees. the article to which i referred said that sometimes in the senate, even though we all have many rights, we have to forgo some of those rights in order to make the place work. that's been happening more lately. republican senators in the minority have been forgoing occasionally some of our rights to slow down a bill coming to the floor or to insist on an amendment that's not relevant. the majority leader has on some occasions forgone his right to block our amendments. we'd like for him to do that more often, that is, forgo that right. but it's been happening more lately. i think of the scheduling difficulty that senator reid and senator mcconnell had on district judges a few weeks ago. instead of letting that blow up the senate, they met privately and agreed they would proceed at a schedule the two of them determined, and we've been considering and confirming district judges at a regular

rate and their agreement permitted us to move to a jobs bill that actually made it easier for stirrups to -- start-ups to move ahead that we passed and the house passed and the president of the united states has then signed. we move forward on an f.a.a. authorization bill after many efforts of not being able to. we have a two-year highway bill that the senate has passed and is now in conference. i'd like for it to be a seven-year bill, but we've made progress on a two-year bill. we had a big debate on the postal service. by have liked to have seen a stronger bill come out of committee and i hope that the house when -- will send us back a stronger bill but we had 39 relevant amendments to that bill that were considered and we're moving on dealing with the big debt that the postal service has. this week, we considered the export-import ex-im bank and took up a bill passed by the republican house. we had five relevant amendments

to that, and disposed of the bill that day. the majority leader says that we have the f.d.a. bill coming up, very important because it affects medicines that americans everywhere depend on, and senator enzi and senator harkin have worked that bill through committee, it has broad support on both sides of the aisle, it may come up only with relevant amendments and we may be able to consider it and pass it. and earlier this year, several of us came to the floor and complimented senator reid, the majority leader, and senator mcconnell, the republican leader, for saying that they wanted to do their best to pass all the appropriations bills this year. that's the basic work of the united states senate. that's paying our bills, that's doing our oversight. and we've only done it twice since the year 2000, pass every single one of the bills. so i don't want to make too much of this progress but it's a little progress. and it's an example of the

senate working the way the senate is supposed to work. now, let's be honest about the fact. this is a more partisan country than it was even ten years ago and that partisanship is reflected in the united states senate. there is by any definition a narrower range of views on the republican side of the aisle and a narrower range of views on the democratic side of the aisle. but we still have our job to do. our job is not just to stand up and express our views. if our job was to only stand up and express our views, each one of us would always be right and we wouldn't get anything done. the second part of the job is to take our views, put them together and see if we can get a result. some people say, well, you're interested in bipartisanship. i'm not so interested in bipartisanship. that interests me very little to tell you the truth. i'm interested in results and i learned at at the maryville city schools how to count and you i can count to 60 and it takes 60

votes to get anything done in this senate, it's going to have to take some on that side and some on this side to get to 60 and i know the american people are expecting results. results on the debt, results on tax reform, results on fixing no child left behind, results on finding a place to put used nuclear fuel, and i want to be a part of getting those results. we have too many problems to solve for us to think we've finished our job simply by announcing our positions, stating our principles, and sitting down. we need to take those principles and put them together and see whether they can mesh and get a result. you know, it's not easy to get to the united states senate. it's very hard to get here. most candidates campaign for a long time. and their campaigns are intense for two years and they usually have terrific opposition and people say things about them that they don't -- they don't like and we end up with some very talented men and women

among the hundred in the united states senate. kind of reminds me of country music. a lot of the people i know, the artists in nashville, they've played in every bar they can find, every state fair they can find for 20 years and finally they might get invited to join the grand ole opry. well, income the senate for a lot -- being in the senate for a lot of the last year was like being invited to join the grand ole opry and not allowed to sing. the majority leader would bring up a bill and block the amendments. he'd do that because he'd say we were keeping him from bringing up bills and our side would say, well, we're not going to let you bring it up unless you let us have amendments and so we're sitting around twiddling our thumbs and twais wasting our time when there -- wasting our time when there was a lot to do. that's why i'm glad to see some things changing here in the last few weeks. mr. president, we all have our wishes about what will happen in the november election. i hope after november we'll see

president romney and we'll see more desks on this side of the aisle, a republican majority. and my friends on the other side expect and hope that the president will be reelected and they'd like to enlarge their majority on the other side of the aisle. but we don't know whether there will be a republican or democratic president or we don't know whether there will be 51 or 52 republican senators or 51 or 52 democratic senators. but we do know pretty well that there probably won't be many more than 51 or 52 or 53 democratic senators or 51 or 52 or 53 republican senators and we can count and we know that's not 60. we know we'll get to tend of the year, have taxes to reform, highways to deal with, nuclear waste to do something about, the payroll tax, and the -- and the biggest tax increase in history facing us, and we know that the country's lack of confidence in the future will be

greatly relieved if it has more confidence in the ability of washington, d.c. to govern this country. we see what's happening in europe, we can look at ourselves, and we know that we have trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines in the united states and part of the reason they're siting there is to wait to see whether we can do our jobs. well, doing our jobs may require forgoing some of our rights. that's what it says on our web site. that we have the rights, and we can insist on them and sometimes we will. but to get things done in the united states senate, sometimes we'll forgo some of our minority rights, and the majority leader, we hope, will forgo some of his rights, and we'll be able to move to a bill, vote on it, and get some results. that is what the american people would like for us to do. so we're moving today to vote on

a democratic and a republican nomination by the president. we're doing it without any obstruction by republicans in the minority, who are very well aware and hope that there will be a president romney after january who will have a number of federal reserve appointments to make and he hopes that his nominees are entitled to the same respect that president obama's nominees are. if these two nominees are confirmed today, the federal reserve board will have a full complement of seven for the first time since 2006 at a time of great economic crisis for our country and as we come up on the end of the year when we'll have a fiscal cliff according to the chairman of the federal reserve board that will cause our action to -- to take care of. so i'm here today to not only to say that i admire the nominees, i know one of them well, jay powell, who waste, fraud, and abuse under secretary of the treasury for the first president bush in an administration which

i served. he has a fine reputation, should be a fine member. but i want to acknowledge the fact that the president chose to break the stalemate by nominating mr. powell, a republican, as well as a democrat, and i want to acknowledge the fact that several of my republican colleagues who have deep concerns about the actions of the federal reserve board during this economic crisis over the last few years have forgone some of their rights to allow us to have an up-and-down vote at noon. that should give us a little bit of confidence to the american people that we in the senate are perfectly able to assert our principles, to stand on our principles, not to give up on our principles, but then after we've made our speeches to sit down and come to a result that may not be perfect. it may not be ideal to each of our principles, but will be good for our country. i thank the president and i yield the floor.

mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. first, i have six unanimous consent requests tore committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: thank you. and, mr. president, i rise today

to thank and honor my good friends and esteemed colleagues, senator alexander and senator johanns. the willingness to vote on two of the president's nominees to serve as members of the board of governors of the federal reserve that they express today is exactly the sort of bipartisan approach that has historically made the senate work. i'd like to honor their efforts to get us back to that proud tradition and thank them for their efforts to bring these two distinguished men to vote. serving on the banking committee together, i know senator johanns to always do his due diligence when reviewing any proposed legislation or, in this case, nominees, and i'm also grateful to my good friend, senator alexander, who's the ranking member of the rules committee. his hard work and insight were invaluable when we worked together to streamline presidential appointments, to pass a bill in the senate to reduce the number of positions requiring senate confirmation. he's always worked for the betterment of this body and

today is another example. yet despite our work last year, we still face a backlog of nominations that gridlocks other important legislative work. the senate was designs to be a thoughtful and deliberate body, but all of america's harmed when we're not able to get qualified people confirmed to positions in a timely manner. nominees of impeccable qualifications and indisputable support have too often been frozen out of the confirmation process and that's not the case now. at this time when our economy is struggling to maintain forward momentum and the federal reserve is faced with difficult decisions about how to help the recovery without creating problems in the future, it's critical we not leave the fed undermanned. for months now, the fed has been operating with only five of its seven board members while nominees languish in the senate confirmation process. there's no real question that both of our nominees are qualified and bipartisan.

area is my stein is a well-known harvard economist with strong expertise in monetary policy and financial regulation. inbetween two stints at harvard, mr. stein was on the finance fact ought at m.i.t.'s sloan school of management for ten years. his research has covered topics as the behavior of stock prices, corporate investment and financing decisions, risk-management, capital allocation inside firms, banking, financial regulation and monetary policy. he is currently coeditor of the "quarterly journal of economics" and was previously a coeditor of the "journal of economic perspectives." from february -- july of 2009, he served as a senior advisor to the treasury secretary and on the staff of the national economic council in the obama administration. jerome powell is a visiting scholar at the bipartisan policy center here in washington, where he has focused on federal and state issues. he's a former lawyer with experience in investment banking and